Sunday, May 22, 2011

The Center-of-Mass Baloney

Basically this is what happened. A suicidal man was walking down the street with a gun. Eight cops responded. A gunfight began. Five cops used their weapons. When the smoke cleared, the suicidal guy was dead and the cops were unharmed.

Investigators cleaning up the mess left behind by the late-night gunfight that killed a Sioux Falls man Wednesday found at least 50 shells from three different calibers littered throughout the residential neighborhood where the incident took place.

But police say the number of bullets - some of which hit homes and cars in the 3100 block of E. 19th St. - is not necessarily overkill.

Of course they say it wasn't overkill. Cops are as loyal to each other as gun-rights activists. The interesting thing is they go on to defend the fact that they shot the guy in the chest instead of the legs. I didn't see any justification for why some of the bullets ended up hitting houses in the neighborhood. I guess that's just part of the deal.

Police spokesman Sam Clemens on Friday said officers are trained to shoot at the "center mass" of anyone who fires on or threatens to fire on law enforcement "until the threat is stopped."

There is no specific number of shots officers must take, Clemens said. They are taught to shoot until the situation is safe.

"You always hear about officers maybe shooting someone in the leg or shooting someone in the arm, but realistically, that's a small target and it may be moving," he said.

Now let me ask you this. Five cops shooting as many times as is necessary in order to stop the threat, could shoot at a guys feet, couldn't they. Even if they only hit him in his lower legs and feet once or twice each, don't you think that would be sufficient to stop the threat? And wouldn't that keep the trajectory of the bullets under better control?

I can understand if there's a gunfight in which the cop faces an kill-or-be-killed situation, and he decides to shoot at the center of mass. But in many of these cases, there are other options.

Yes, FWM, I don't get too excited about the magazine capacity argument. I don't know if I'd call it a dog and pony show exactly, I think the folks pushing it have some good points, I just feel we have more important gun control issues to fight for.

TS, I think you're the one watching too many movies. A bullet or two in the ankles and you think the guy's gonna keep shooting with his good hand?

I would think shooting toward the ground (i.e. at the criminal's ankle) would make it more likely that a bullet would richochet around and go who knows where.

The article also mentions that it was a gun fight, which to me suggests that the criminal was shooting at the police.

You said "I can understand if there's a gunfight in which the cop faces an kill-or-be-killed situation, and he decides to shoot at the center of mass. But in many of these cases, there are other options." So which is it? Should the police have shot to kill in this gunfight or not? Also, who is to say that the bullets that struck a house or car were fired by the police? Those could have been fired by the criminal.

A few possibilities that the poice can sometimes use effectively against people who are dangerous, even shooting, without shooting back where to do that would endanger other people.....stun grenades, smoke grenades, tear gas, tasers....

TS made the observation that shooting someone in the leg doesn't prevent them fro musing their hand to continue firing.

That is correct, but it is also true that the shock and pain of being shot, particularly if it shatters bone or causes a lot of blood loss, can affect an individual's abiltiy to shoot back, or to shoot back with equivalent aim from before they were hit. It does impair a shooter if not reliably stopping them. It can also be a strong deterrent to their willingness to risk being shot additional times in other body parts.

No one should be shooting just to wound, except maybe in limited circumstances highly specialized sharp shooters and snipers. In overwhelmingly the majority of instances, when anyone including law enforcement fires their weapon, it should be becaues the decision has been considered and made-- even if quickly - that the intent and necessity is to kill the person they are shooting at.